[glangdale]

You mistake my reasons. Popularity is not an end in itself. Popularity, in this case, is a requirement to capture meaningful workloads to test what is purportedly a research operating system.

The reason that Plan 9 failed as a platform for exploring OS design (not strictly speaking "OS research" in a narrow sense) is that modern workloads didn't run there.

Honestly, who cares which platform supports a handful of processes running the moral equivalent of xclock, a few shells, a 1980s looking terminal and the occasional build? This isn't a proxy for anything that anyone cares about, and all modern hardware is ludicrously overpowered to do that. Give me a modern machine, and I could probably write you something that simulated a decent-looking 1989-level experience in pure Python (I am not saying this is a good idea).

It rapidly became impossible to test any meaningful ideas on Plan 9 because what consensus reality regards as "software" doesn't really run there. This filters down into potentially bad decisions about design of OS and runtimes. You can't test out ideas that come from anywhere outside your narrow circle of "the Unix room and miscellaneous fanboys and trainspotters".

For example, is "everything is a file" a good abstraction for a modern graphical interface of any kind? Who knows, we'll never see one ported to Plan 9, just a bunch of bitblt-level fingerpainting.

If Plan 9 had stayed popular (there's that word) enough to attract enough users to matter, maybe we could have explored these ideas. Not necessarily building a dumb clone of Windows and doing everything the same way, but having enough interoperability to make it a plausible daily driver.

[witheld]

"Popular", "Modern Workloads", "meaningful ideas"

You are a buzzword machine with no substance. All of these are nothing more than an obsession with some idea of success.

Will modern apps, workloads, quote on quote "meaningful" things run on uxn? No! But we can still research what you can do with modern aspirations and knowledge on an 8bit computer.

The goal is not to run some existing software, the goal is to learn. To make new software, new workloads, new ideas.

If you want to run "modern workloads", these days just grab a web browser- you can probably even do your GPU research in there!

Do that, that's wonderful if your research is about things you can do on normal operating systems like a web browser. But if your research is about computers, you probably need to say, design a new computer (uxn) or expose yourself to different kinds of computers. I suggest you do both, write a compiler and write a VM for it!

You'll get maybe a dozen users, and you'll learn, and you'll teach people things. All without any "success"

[glangdale]

You have a strange notion of what 'research' might be, which doesn't really map to either a academic notion of research ("write papers that might appeal to an {OS,PL,NS}DI committee") or a practical notion of research ("build cool things that might help people do things with computers that couldn't be done before"). I've actually done these things, as it happens, so spare me your frothing at the mouth about "buzzword machines" and substance please - a bit much coming from an anonymous account.

I'm not going to denigrate noodling around with uxn, which seems quite neat, but it's not in any way shape or form something that most people would recognize as "research": it might be cool, and it might be an effective way of learning things, but it is not going to let anyone do anything substantially new they couldn't do before.

The point of "popularity" is not to win internet brownie points: it's to get outside your own head and find out what other people's workloads look like. If "modern" workloads sounds too much like a cliche (and I admit it does sound a bit like I feel like all research OS work should be centered around supporting an Electron stack or some hipster NoSQL database running in Kubernetes when I talk like that) - it could just as easily be "scientific workloads" or even, god help us, COBOL workloads.

Just something that you didn't yourself make up. That's noodling. That's a hobby. We're all really good at asking ourselves questions and providing good answers for them.

Anyhow, enjoy your noodling. I'm sure you'll have some absurd and reactive response to this, and yell and scream some more about how I don't have any substance and how your notion of research is Super Awesome and we all should invest more time playing with 8-bit computers, but I have some 256-bit and 512-bit stuff to get to, so have a nice day.

[Karrot_Kream]

> You are a buzzword machine with no substance. All of these are nothing more than an obsession with some idea of success.

Why are you so abrasive? The poster is saying nothing bad to you, but you keep insulting them. Why?

> Will modern apps, workloads, quote on quote "meaningful" things run on uxn? No! But we can still research what you can do with modern aspirations and knowledge on an 8bit computer.

uxn is a badly built architecture. It's an 8-bit computer with 16-bit addresses, no overflow flags/bits/registers, and inefficient jump modes. It makes no sense. It tries to ape 8-bit computers of its time without understanding the limitations of transistors and budgets at the time. You just need a passing understand of computer architecture and registers to understand that. And if you want something didactic, there's architectures like the LC-3 which do make sense, so this is definitely not a dead end as much as a bad implementation. I'm not sure why so many folks on HN have been latching onto uxn recently, I presume it's become popular in some computing minimalism circle.

> Do that, that's wonderful if your research is about things you can do on normal operating systems like a web browser. But if your research is about computers, you probably need to say, design a new computer (uxn) or expose yourself to different kinds of computers. I suggest you do both, write a compiler and write a VM for it!

Everyone _knows_ why a computer like uxn is a dead end. It's not like uxn has a monopoloy on 8-bit fantasy architectures either, so there's certainly viable options. There are others that don't have the same issues. nga, the VM underneath RetroForth, doesn't suffer the same issues for example.

Look, lots of people like reenacting period dramas and doing things like renaissance faires. But period drama and RenFaire folks don't act like they're doing fundamental research. They're having fun and expressing their creativity, which is great, but they're not coming up with new historical research. Call a spade a spade and call art art. And let folks have opinions on the way OS research should work without calling them names.

[witheld]

> You just need a passing understand of computer architecture and registers to understand that. And if you want something didactic

I'd say I'm just the only one here not pretending I'm not abrasive. This was abrasive from the start, and every comment has been abrasive.

> Look, lots of people like reenacting period dramas and doing things like renaissance faires. But period drama and RenFaire folks don't act like they're doing fundamental research.

Honestly look at this. Do you just want me to be abrasive in your special style instead? Should I make sure I patronize everyone subtly? Is that the end goal?

If you think that computers are solved, that you have to do some specific thing to research computers like use Linux, or run Docker, or get popular, you've missed the mark.

There's no reason you get to decide what research is because you came up with a funny insult, and if you're saying people can't learn more about computers by using them, you're just a gatekeeper.

> And let folks have opinions on the way OS research should work without calling them names.

Are you kidding me? You just literally wrote that it's comparable to the renaissance fair instead of research. How can be you so hypocritical?